CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 9 avril 2015

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 184 April 2015 Tchokontio Happi v. France - 65829/12 Judgment 9.4.2015 [Section V] Article 6 Enforcement proceedings Article 6-1 Access to court Failure to comply with court order requiring applicant’s urgent rehousing: violation Facts – The applicant lives with her daughter and brother in a flat in the Paris region. In a decision of February 2010, a mediation commission, finding that they were housed in indecent and insalubrious conditions, earmarked their case as a priority for urgent re-housing. Six months from the date of that decision she had not received an offer of housing which took account of her needs and capacities, so the applicant lodged an application with the Administrative Court, asking it to order the State to find her accommodation, on pain of a fine. In December 2010, after noting that the matter was particularly urgent, the court granted her request and instructed the prefect to rehouse the applicant, her daughter and her brother, on pain of a fine of EUR 700 per month of delay to be paid into the regional urban development fund. In January 2012, as the applicant had still not been rehoused, the Administrative Court provisionally enforced the fine, ordering the State to pay EUR   8,400 to the regional urban development fund. On the date of the Court’s judgment, the applicant and her family had still not been rehoused. The proceedings in question were brought under the law on the enforceable right to housing, the “DALO” Act of 5 March 2007, providing that a right to decent and independent housing, for individuals who are unable to obtain it by their own means or to keep their existing housing, is guaranteed by the State. Law – Article 6 § 1 of the Convention: While the applicant had still not been offered housing adapted to her needs and capacities, the fine had certainly been enforced and paid by the State. However, the sole aim of the fine was to compel the State to implement the rehousing order and had no compensatory function. It had not been paid to the applicant but to a State-run development fund. With no new housing forthcoming, the judgment of December 2010 had not been fully enforced, over three and a half years after delivery – even though the domestic courts had indicated that the applicant’s request was to be granted with particular urgency. The failure to enforce the judgment in question, attributed by the Government to a lack of available accommodation, was not based on any valid justification within the meaning of the Court’s case-law, according to which it was not open to a State authority to cite a lack of funds or other resources as an excuse for not honouring a judgment debt. Consequently, by failing for several years to take the necessary measures to comply with the final and enforceable court decision, the French authorities had deprived Article 6 § 1 of all useful effect. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 1 of Protocol No. 1: According to the judgment of December 2010 the prefect had been required to rehouse the applicant. The judgment had obliged the authorities not to grant her the ownership of a flat but to provide one for her use. Under a social tenancy agreement, the applicant should have enjoyed the right to use a flat. Subject to certain conditions she could have been able to buy it, but this was an option, not a right, any sale being subject to the authorisation of the administrative authorities concerned. She did not therefore have any “legitimate expectation” of acquiring property. Accordingly, it could not be considered that the nature of her claim – her right to a “social tenancy” – constituted a “possession” within the meaning of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1. Conclusion : inadmissible (incompatible ratione materiae ). Article 41: no claim made in respect of damage. (See also Teteriny v. Russia , 11931/03, 30   June 2005, Information Note   76 ; Olaru and Others v.   the Republic of Moldova , 476/07 et al., 28   July 2009, Information Note   121 ; Ilyushkin and Others v.   Russia , 5734/08, 17   April 2012, Information Note   151 ; Gerasimov and Others v.   Russia , 29920/05 et al., 1   July 2014, Information Note   176 )   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes